EDITORIAL
Divisiveness at vote
brings flaws to light
Faculty and students should be embarrassed by their
behavior at Wednesday's University Assembly meeting.
Following the assembly's vote to reconsider a revision to
the race, gender and non-European studies requirement,
the assembly began hearing and voting on several amend
ments.
The assembly passed an amendment to broaden the
requirements of the first of two proposed courses from
dealing only with African-Americans. Asian-Americans.
Native Americans and Utinos/Chicanos to including all
"racial/othnic minority groups in the U.S.A.”
It was then that things turned ugly. Students attending
the meeting stormed out while shouting profanities at
the assembly. It should be pointed out that this handful
of students is in no way representative of the student
body as a whole.
fudging by the low turnout at Wednesday s multlcul
tural curriculum support rally, many students at the
University are at least apathetic about the requirement,
if not opposed to being given the burden of another
requirement. While an effective multicultural curricu
lum is ossontial to a liberal arts education, the concerns
that arise with the addition of further requirements can
not la* ignored.
A speaker at the assembly criticized the group for wor
rying about the financial impact of the revised require
ment, tolling the assembly that it should concern itself
rather with students’ futures.
But what do students believe is more important to
their futures: The benefit gained by taking one addition
al required class, or the potential cost of the requirement,
which could eventually load to a greater tuition
Increase? More than likely it’s the latter.
Perhaps the most embarrassing part was the reaction
of associate professor Robert Proud foot, who stormed out
of the meeting after loudly accusing the assembly of tak
ing away bis voice. This is far from appropriate behavior
for someone who is perceived as a role model by some
students, and reflects very poorly on the image of facul
ty at the University,
Both Proudfoot and associate professor Sumi Cho
alluded to another troubling aspect of the requirement
before it was amended. Proudfoot complained the
amendment "lumped (Native Americans) together with
everyone else.” Cho claimed the reason the requirement
was exclusive to the study of only four racial groups was
because those groups have suffered more prejudice than
others.
This typo of selective victimization and competitive
suffering indicates that the requirement's result will be
to facilitate separatism, not multiculturalism. It should
also bo considered extremely offensive to members of
minority groups not represented in the "Big Four."
To tell a race of people, "you have been oppressed, but
we have been oppressed more so we deserve preferential
treatment" is exactly the kind of irresponsible thinking
that has resulted in the quagmire facing Israel and the
Palestinians. Both groups have suffered historical
oppression, but both groups believe each has suffered
more than the other. Thoir solution? Shoot at each oth
er.
The only reason there is so much confusion between
the two classes is because in many people's minds it's
difficult to distinguish between a race and an ethnic
group. Fortunately, the assembly took a step in the right
direction Wednesday when it moved away from the pro
posed curriculum that was before it.
Oregon Daily
Emerald
Ifw Oagc*1 E ma<aid .» puftajhad daxy Monday tmough F>«J»y duong tha jchoc*
y«*< and tudJday and thutjday duimg tha jummar by tha Oagon Daily Em«(»ld
Putx.jn.ng Co me a! Ift» UnwwMy ol Oagon. Eugana. Oagon
Tha fmatakJ opaiaura maapandantty ol the Ovvaijrty «nrh often at Su«e 300 ot tha
Em Mamonal IXwjn and >» a mamtftw ol tfta Aaaoemtad P'a»
tha Emerald <i private property tha untaiatuf removal c» uja o< paparj .a (xoaacutatxa
by i*«*
Editor: PatMatac*
Nm Editor
Editorial Editor
Qiapntct Editor
Entartainmant Editor
JaM Bwg
Martm f i*fx*
Xi Pmiay
fi»ya Horn
Fraalanca Editor
Editorial Editor
Sport* Editor
Supptamaot* Editor
Ntgfct Editor
Ma'YJy IMotum
R>v*»5 JansM'’
D*v» OwtomMu
Cauey *nd»»on
Attocou Editor*: Ba’e> Stud&nt Government Act * t'es Da'atyn Tupp*
Commuter Co*mo Po^n«. «ph*r IdhoHioniMmnmratiOff
Hew, SUM CWK *• 1»- MaM Orrsje- JuMm Brown. Sa-.i1' Ca'« Mog 0*<Mph. *■’ »
0**»<wrt Jon O>*o«. Knr^onr f«n*> Mage. T**u Havanp
Babecc.1 M»«fl $!*v« M • i K*v Mosi>w. T '• < Mar.« T-.wa Now f ‘*- Shaw Enc*
S«wa»n**» Ma' :■•' Sa<or Ra-sK ThwOen. Uch«e Thomoaon-Agaar. Ani, Van Tuyi. To*}
^ Qiyton >«• _
(DWMMMuxjM
COMMENTARY
Are athletic fee cuts reasonable?
Athletic funding cut
is more than fair
By Neil Sunnell
Sludunt interest* have l>een poorly served by
the Tuesday, May 4 Emerald editorial that
was critical of the Incidental Fee Commit
tee's decision to allocate $35,000 less in student
incidental fees to the athletic department.
If the Emerald had read the department's bud
get, it would have learned the department's bud
get is more than $10 million, not $1 04 million. If
the Emerald had bothered to get some fact*, it
would understand that students paid for 12,000
football tickets they did not use this year
1 must say I was rather impressed the Emerald
got one fact correct, indeed, the IFC's most recent
cut is the fourth in five years. According to ath
letic director Rich brooks, these cuts have totaled
about $200,000. If the Emerald did some simple
math, it would find that all of the cuts during the
past four years total less than 2 percent of the
department's operating revenue for one year
As for the assertion that the IFC should not he
making decisions affecting large numbers of stu
dents and that such questions should be put to a
vote: Welcome to the world of representative
democracy. Get used to it.
The IF'C is charged with the responsibility of
allocating approximately $4.7 million in student
fees. Indeed, the athletic department could have
put this matter to a vote of the student body last
month. Although this may be an option for next
year, it is loo late for that course of action now.
The issue is not a question of greed It is a ques
tion of supply and demand. University athletics
tain only charge what customers are willing to pay.
The fact is that 18 percent fewer people on aver
age (not |ust students) attended football games fall
term.
As to the assertion that the athletic department
has the prerogative to be as money hungry as it
wants, we all have that same prerogative. Unfor
tunately. the athletic department, like many of us,
does not have the resources to sate an endless
hunger.
The athletic department made the same threats
it is making now. It is wrong for the Emerald to
pressure the student government to fund the ath
letic department according to its analysis of the
situation. Furthermore, students should not Ik?
misled by the faulty arguments forwarded by the
Emerald.
Where was the Emerald when these issues sur
faced’ As far as I know, the Emerald has not main*
Turn to CUTS, Page 3
Athletic department
cannot sustain cuts
By Sandy Walton
As the result of a general election ballot
measure in the spring of 1987, the Inci
dental Fee Committee provides an annual
direct subsidy to the Department of Intercolle
giate Athletics for all women’s sports, co-ed
sports, and men's sports except football and
men's bnskett>a!l.
In consideration for this support, students
receive 6.098 tickets for football, 3,523 tickets for
men's basketball, the locations for both of which
are stipulated in the contract, and unlimited
admission to all other athletic events.
When submitting the budget for the 1993-9-1
fiscal year to the IFC. the athletic department did
not request an increase in dollars, did not request
the restoration of any previous cuts, nor has it
ever asked for any changes in student ticket num
bers or location. However, the IFC and ASUO
recommended a cut of S3S.000. marking the
fourth straight year the budget has been reduced.
The budget was previously cut $40,000 in 1990
91. $57,450 in4991-92 and $54,566 in 1992-93.
The time for seating changes liiay have arrived.
The cumulative effect of these cuts is enor
mous. The IFC support in 1987-88 accounted for
77 percent of subsidized expenses for which it
was earmarked, but now covers only 46 percent.
IFC funding was 12.9 percent of the total budget
but now is only 7.8 percent.
The total incidental fee in 1987-88 was about
$75 per student per term, of which athlutics
received about $25. The incidental fee is current
ly about $107 per term, of which athletics
receives $22.
During these same six years, tuition has
increased 104 percent and 113 percent for in
state and out-of-state respectively. Salaries and
wages have increased almost 20 percent. Travel
has risen more than 15 percent. Had the public
bought these same seats, the market value would
have been $1,238 million in 1987-88 and $1,717
million in 1992-93
Public ticket prices have risen 19 percent for
football and 20 percent for men's basketball. Dur
ing these years, student price support has
dropped from 93 percent of the market value in
1987-88 to 60 percent in 1992-93.
Despite these cuts and constantly rising
expenses, and recognizing the financial difficul
ties faced by students, athletics has not reduced
the number of tickets nor changed seating loca
Tum to SEATS. Page 3